layer_infoGet an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by url: fields (name + type), geometry type, total record count, and capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feature/Map Service layer url, e.g. ".../FeatureServer/0". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://gis.ci.pflugerville.tx.us/arcgis/rest/services/Utilities/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing what the response contains (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which helps the agent anticipate the output. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that lists specific outputs without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values. It could mention potential pitfalls (e.g., invalid URLs) but that is not essential. Overall complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the url parameter is fully described). The description confirms the parameter is used as the target URL but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource (ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema) and enumerates the exact output contents. This distinguishes it from siblings like query_layer, which is likely for querying features rather than schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this when you need a layer's schema, fields, geometry type, record count, or capabilities. However, no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., query_layer) is provided, so it relies on the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set contains multiple overlapping tools for data querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and prediction market analysis (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread), making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use. The GIS-specific tools are few and could be confused with general data tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun or noun_verb (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, search_datasets), while others are longer phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Mixed conventions and lack of uniformity reduce predictability.
With 34 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on ArcGIS Pflugerville. Many tools are unrelated to GIS (e.g., prediction market tools, general Pipeworx utilities), making the tool surface feel bloated and poorly scoped.
For an ArcGIS server, the coverage is minimal: only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) directly support GIS operations. Missing typical GIS capabilities like geocoding, spatial analysis, or editing. The inclusion of many non-GIS tools does not compensate for the lack of depth in the core domain.